Talk:Roswell incident

Article Rating

This article is currently rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. I have looked at the criteria for B-class and C-class articles and I believe this article meets the B-class criteria. If you agree or disagree let me know! Drocj (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I've upgraded to B. It's probably a Good Article, been in the queue since March waiting for a review. Feoffer (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

accuracy of coordinates

Is the location of the balloon crash known to the accuracy given in the coordinates, 1 second of arc (which is under 100 feet)? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

No? The coordinates point to the entrance of the Brazel ranch, where modern tourists are taken, not to the precise location on the ranch where the debris was found. Feoffer (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roswell incident/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Feoffer (talk · contribs) 03:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 00:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this shortly! IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Looking forward to it. I should also ping @Rjjiii:. Feoffer (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the page but will let you take the lead to avoid chaos and edit conflicts, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	In the 1990s, the United States Air Force published multiple reports establishing Project Mogul as being directly responsible for the crash. This is from the lead and I'm sure you give an explanation for what Project Mogul is in the body but I think it's worth giving a one-line explanation of it in the lead. IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC) Based on my first read-through of this article there doesn't appear to be any major prose issues which is rare. I'll do another read-through later on but things look good. IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Just for my own sanity as well as others I'm going to be doing my source review by source, not section. So far I've checked what was available on Google Books for Olmsted 2009 and Goldberg 2001. IntentionallyDense (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC) I was able to verify all the online articles used as sources. I will now be moving on to some of the books used. IntentionallyDense (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC) Verified Frank 2023, Clancy 2007, klass 1997b, Klass 1998, and Pflock 2001 sources. I'm going to take a break from source reviewing since it is making my head hurt lol. IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC) I've verified all the Saler, Ziegler & Moore 1997 refs. That combined with the 8 other books as well as the online sources I checked have come back clean (besides the two points I mentioned below which were verified in other parts of the sources just not the ones you indicated). Once you've gotten back to me about the points I raised below I think I'll wrap up my source review just because of the amount of references and the fact that I'm not finding any major issues. If anyone has an issue with this I'm happy to check more sources I just don't think that is a productive use of my time at this point. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	passed copyvio check and when comparing the sources to the article I found no plagiarism issues. IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See comment below about "BeWitness event" IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Great use of images! I really enjoy the alien photos! IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	@Feoffer and Rjjiii: I'm going to place this on hold until you guys can address the minor issues with sourcing I listed below (those may be me missing something so let me know if that is the case), expand the lead a bit based on my comments for 1a, and explain what a "BeWitness event" is. Overall excellent work to both of you. I'm pleasantly surprised to have found relatively no issues with this article. IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• What is going on with Post" style="background: rgb(236, 228, 237);" class=" nonimage">The Washington Post Under the section "Related debunked or fringe theories" IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, I'm not seeing that text in the source or in the rendered page. Feoffer (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

My laptop must be glitching for some reason. Hopefully it will start to behave by the end of the review, if not I'll take a look at the article from a different device and let you know if it's still an issue. IntentionallyDense (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Later that month, Brazel discovered tinfoil, rubber, tape, and thin wooden beams scattered across several acres of his ranch Neither of the sources you listed seem to support this, am I missing something here? IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Were you able to access the full news article? I'll see if I can clip a better link, but newspapers.com has been pretty flaky. Here's a quote: "The contraption, of tinfoil, narrow wooden beams and synthetic rubber [...] Brazell, whose ranch is 30 miles from the nearest telephone and has no radio, knew nothing about flying discs when he found the remains of the weather device scattered over a square mile of his property three weeks ago. [...] He bundled together the large pile of tinfoil and broken wooden beams about one-fourth of an inch thick and half-inch wide and the torn mass of synthetic rubber that had been the balloon and rolled it under some brush, [...]"

  Clancy (2007) is a more recent secondary source to avoid relying on modern news coverage. The last paragraph on page 92 (and continuing onto page 93) reads: "Ironically, this report came out on the very day that the so-called Roswell incident occurred. On June 14, near Roswell, New Mexico, a rancher had found some debris on the ground. He’d brought it into town on July 7. As was stated two days later in the Roswell Daily Record, “The tinfoil, paper, tape, and sticks made a bundle about three feet long and seven or eight inches thick. Considerable scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed on it had been used in the construction.” This pile of debris was linked to local sightings of a flying disc, which the U.S. military later identified as a radar-tracking balloon." Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  I see, I must have missed this. I wasn't too concerned since other sources used elsewhere supported the info. Thank you for giving me the quotes. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, newspapers.com has been acting mighty goofy recently and that newspaper ran 5 (!) editions per day. There are ufology sites that offer an archive, but they're all deprecated/blacklisted. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Wilcox called Roswell Army Air Field (RAAF). I've borrowed the book linked to ref 11 and I'm not seeing the bit about RAAF on pages 35 or 36 IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Major Jesse Marcel (Marcel), Captain Sheridan Cavitt (the CIC man), Haut, and Col. Blanchard are at RAAF in 1947. Where it talks about "Marcel" getting a call, that's in his capacity as a military officer at that base, not personally. The roles are established earlier in the book. Like at the newspaper quoted at the top of page 21, or the comment at the bottom of page 64. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for explaining this. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• First presented at a BeWitness event in Mexico What is a "BeWitness event"? Is it possible that you could add an explanation to the article? IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Great catch, I've changed it to simply "UFO conference". Feoffer (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds good. I think that covers all the issues I found. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Pending the changes I suggested to the lead I think this is probably a pass. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Good deal. Added the explanation of Mogul to the lead. Feoffer (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DYK nomination?

I'm not familiar with Main Page criteria, but if anyone else would like to nominate this for Did You Know, please do: Wikipedia:Did you know/Create new nomination. Feoffer (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Launchballer talk 16:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 1947, space aliens landed in New Mexico?

• Source: I know this is pushing it, and this is clearly a false statement, but I think we can get away with it for a quirky hook in a dedicated Halloween set.

• ALT1: ... that the 1947 Roswell hoax has been said to have been part of a "Cosmic Watergate"? Source: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Enemies_Within/Z8e5YELGGFAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA189&printsec=frontcover
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Ohio Issue 1
• Comment: Please hold for special WT:DYK#Halloween set

Improved to Good Article status by Feoffer (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 42 past nominations.

RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC).

• It has been pointed out to me that this has been on OTD (multiple times), so I'm withdrawing this nomination. RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Fund for UFO Research book

Ziegler's Version 5 is the Fund for UFO Research-funded Roswell in Perspective (1994). When adding it to the footnote just now, I started to add it to the table. I am thinking it probably does belong in there if the table is meant to present Ziegler's view. I had left it out originally because no other WP:RS treats it as influential on the UFO community or popular culture (whereas very many agree on his Version 1).

|-
!''Roswell in Perspective'' (1994)<ref>{{Harvnb|Saler|Ziegler|Moore|pages=25-26}}</ref>	
|
* Fragments with symbols	
* Super-strong lightweight metal sheets
* A narrow craft with "bat-like wings" north of Roswell
|	
* Landed once near Corona, New Mexico, on Brazel's ranch	
* Struck a cliff 35 miles north of Roswell
|
* 3 humanoid corpses north of Roswell	
* 1 living humanoid pilot north of Roswell

Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for fixing it the footnote! Feoffer (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Majestic 12 hoax section

In the "Majestic 12 hoax" section....a couple of things stand out to me:

1. It talks about how (at that 1989 MUFON conference) Bill Moore "confessed that he had intentionally fed fake evidence of extraterrestrials to UFO researchers". That's true....but (and correct me if I am wrong) he did not say that MJ-12 was one of them. In the context of that section, that could mislead people if we don't make that distinction.
2. We present only the "it's a hoax" side of things. I agree that it is a hoax (in case anyone thinks I am pushing a POV here), but there have been arguments from the other side of this. In particular, in Stanton Friedman's works. We bring up the format errors of the documents....but Stanton Friedman (based on a challenge by Phil Klass) found other such errors in government documents. I admit though: with such a short section....would such a addition give the section a BALANCE issue? I'm not sure....that's why I posted here (for other opinions). Thanks for reading.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your point #2, the thing to stress is that (as I understand it) some ufologists still believe that Majestic 12 existed, despite the fact that the known Majestic 12 documents are widely agreed to be fake and the identities of its members are correspondingly in question. Saying that the organization could not have existed because the documents are phony is affirming a disjunct. Carguychris (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Right. IIRC, there has been some speculation that the documents were faked in order to force the government to admit such a organization exist[ed]. I can't think of a RS saying that though. (I saw (for example) a UFO researcher saying that on The History Channel....but The History Channel is not a RS.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Bullet points addressed in article.[1] Regarding "documents were faked in order to force the government to admit such a organization", it's been claimed that Bill Moore proposed something like that by 3 other ufologists, Friedman, Randle, and Brad Sparks.[2] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Richard Doty

I have RfD's the redirect from Richard Doty to the film Mirage Men because the target article doesn't say anything substantive about Doty. I think this is potentially of interest to people who follow this article. Discussion here. Carguychris (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)